Bush To Back Federal Marraige Amendment
Posted on June 5, 2006
Update: ACLU Rebukes President Bush’s Support.
For the first time in his second term, President Bush will revisit the emotional debate over same-sex marriage. In two speeches, he will press the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment this week defining marriage as the union of a man and woman.
Bush’s opposition to marriage between gay partners helped power him to reelection in 2004, but since then he has remained largely silent on the issue, to the consternation of some conservatives who have asserted that he has not exerted leadership.
Now, with midterm elections approaching, he is returning to a topic that galvanizes an important part of the Republican base.
The president devoted his weekly radio address yesterday to the Federal Marriage Amendment;he has invited supporters to the White House tomorrow for another speech promoting it.
The Senate is set to begin debating the amendment tomorrow and vote on Wednesday, but both sides believe sponsors do not have the 67 votes it needs for approval despite Bush’s endorsement.
I’m sure we will see all kinds of angles on this, and please consider this an open thread to debate the issue. My first concern on the issue is limiting the courts from usurping the will of the people. This legislation will do that. My first reaction to this legislation was a little cautious. I think the issue should be a states’ rights issue. I think each state should make their own decisions on whether to allow gay marraige or not.
According to Walter M. Weber, the senior litigation counsel for the ACLJ, this legislation does leave marraige to the states. He writes over at NRO:
The FMA does leave marriage to the states. If a legislature wants to legalize homosexual “marriage,” it can do so. What the FMA does is stop federal and state courts from forcing states to allow same sex “marriage.” So if you’re pro-state choice, you should support the FMA.
He goes on to list several other misunderstandings on the FMA. I think it is important to get all of the misunderstandings about the amendment out of the way in order to have a true debate on the issue. Special interest groups are pressuring from all sides on this. I think it is important that the will of the people is heard in all of the clatter. My position is to leave the issue to the states, and out of the courts. If this amendment does that, it has my support. Feel free to debate it in the comments. I’m sure it will get lively.
Another angle being seen around the blogosphere is that this push may backfire. Many think it is a smokescreen to divert attention from the issue of illegal immigration.
Update: Make sure to see the video of Michelle Malkin debating Kirstin Powers on this issue.
» Filed Under ACLU, Homosexual Agenda, News
Trackback URL
Comments
25 Responses to “Bush To Back Federal Marraige Amendment”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Suggestions
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
My colleague and I just wrote a play on gay marriage called Y2Gay. Check it out!
http://dontstoptheaclu.blogspot.com/2006/06/y2gay-prophesy-in-one-act-by-maven.html
Do not be deceived this is not a states right issue. The reality of life is that the federal government is already aiding the homosexual movement through activist judges. The ACLU and the American Bar Association are both NGO’s of the UN and agree to advance the UN’s policies including advancing the homosexual agenda. Federal judges are usually members of the ABA which gives the ABA(UN) input on their decisions. A federal Amendment even if it succeeds will most likely be ignored. It will tell us who to target in order to vote them out of federal office. States rights are a good issue but when globalist start supporting state rights I get highly skeptical. If you really want to give states back their rights then we need to revoke the Seventeenth Amendment and move to Amend the Constitution in order to make federal judges an elected position where candidates are appointed by the states.
Common Voice,
I am rather opposed to libertarian values since they are opposed to the classical liberal values that the United States is based upon. Marriage has been a social contract arranged between a man and a women longer than the United States has been a country. The government has regulated it longer than that and for good cause. I consider libertarians, anarchist, and social Darwinist as related and equally dangerous political philosophies that have damaged the freedom of the people of the United States immensely. You might take a little time and read the preamble of the Constitution which tell why the government has the right to regulate it’s people. In this case homosexuality is a practice that deprives a large number of it’s practitioners of their right to lives and health and any government that supports it is thus depriving some of it’s people of their God given rights which makes that government a tyranny according to the definition provided in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
I agree with what Bruce at GayPatriot said here and here about the FMA.
Heh-heh. You said “homosexual agenda,” which is on my list of verboten phrases, so that first comment (6) is out the window as far as I’m concerned.
As for your next comment (7), did you just say that any government that allows homosexuality is tyrannical? I hope you don’t really believe that, but if you do, there’s a cat in Topeka, Kansas, who could use a guy like you.
I am opposed to a constitutional amendment because while it says it protects marriage, in reality our culture has deluded marriage to a point where it is useless.
One might also note the only time the constitution was used to restrict rights, it was repealed.
And even beyond that, I am at a loss to understand why they are even trying when they know there is not enough support to make a realistic amendment.
I blogged my thoughts on thishere
Sorry my blog link is here:
http://tinyurl.com/ep3hr
God I hate this blog, this stupid bigot blog. Homophobia, like aborted fetuses, is always gut-wrenching to look at. American Conservatives, and their distorted Christianity, is inherently stiffening to others and to themselves. It is laughable how transparent the insecurities of homophobes are. This is not about states right or even about marriage. This is about a bunch of witch-burning slave collectors, trying once again to keep their dominate place in society and keeping all others who diverge from the norm from ever exerting their rights. We have seen this question arise before in interracial marriages, hell, even between white folks with a different name for a made-believe character. The irrationality of the argument for a ‘traditional marriage’ is not even worth a reply. I will just leave you with your worst fear: Homosexuality is not a sin, it is not a choice. It is just another aspect of humanity which means it can occur in all human; your sons, your daughters, and as you most certainly fears, in you as well.
You can leave the way you came in toothpick. Call the people bigots all you want, but you can’t force social change on people.
@toothpickspider
“It is laughable how transparent the insecurities of homophobes are.”
You’re projecting.
What this is about is Not succumbing to the tyranny of a minority.
“Just as no one who counts for anything outside a Klan meeting opposes mixed-race marriages today, in the not-so-distant future gay marriage won’t be a big deal.”
Now, *that* ladies and gentlemen, is an “opinion”.
What is not a big deal is gay civil unions. Marriage is traditionally defined by religion. An amendment such as this is protecting religious rights. Until gays can form a *recognized* religion that espouses marriage between same sex persons…there’s not much to talk about,imo.
“This, of course, leaves aside the fact that America is almost evenly split when it comes to attitudes abotu gay marriage”…
A minute ago it was even redneckians support it and now you’ve downgraded to a 50/50 split?
yeah, I don’t know where this guy got his stats from because several states passed gay marraige bans that were voted on by the people. The straw man argument in comparing this to interracial marraige falls flat until you can prove that there is a gay gene.
Even though the AMA and both APAs say otherwise, you’re still clinging to the belief that homosexuality is a choice? Scientists and doctors are such morons when it comes to science and medicine. I’ll just take the word of a/an [enter your occupation here] as the ultimate authority on the subject.
I sure as hell don’t remember making a decision on my sexuality. I think God robbed me of that right.
But OK, just for the sake of this argument, let’s say it is a choice (which it’s not). Does that then give you the right to discriminate?
Yes, the states do have the right to make discriminatory choices…in my opinion. The next step after this is polygamy. This one has a much better argument due to the fact that some religions actually support it. And after that…whats next? Should we discriminate brothers and sisters from marrying? Fathers and daughters? And what about age discrimination?
No one likes families more than polygamists. Just look at the Mormons and all the kids they have. Also, I fail to see how legalized polygamy would affect me or you personally. Please tell me why you are so worried about this.
We should not condone any sexual/life-partner relationship in which all are not verifiably willing participants. I would be very, very surprised if you could show me a group of incestuous siblings/parents-and-children in which everybody was happy with the arrangement. If you could, however, then you’re right. I see no reason why we shouldn’t let them marry. As long as no one makes me marry a relative (or anybody else against my will), I’m not especially concerned about this.
What about it? Are you not familiar with Anna Nicole Smith? This is a non sequitur.
By age discrimination I meant children marrying adults. Can you not see the chaos? In polygamy there is often marrying of children, and a lot of unwilling participants.
If you want to marry your dog, I don’t really care…go for it. But, if you think you can take something that is holy to many people, force its definition to be changed, and force everyone to accept it you are wrong.
Maybe you can get your the majority of your state to turn into such a place that accepts polygamy, incestious marraiges, etc. If they vote it all in then more power to them. I think each state should have the same right to define their own laws and moral boundaries.
C.R.,
Heh-heh. You said “homosexual agenda,” which is on my list of verboten phrases, so that first comment (6) is out the window as far as I’m concerned.
That makes you a fool or crook since anyone with a teaspoon of wisdom or honesty knows that then homosexual movement has been operating for a long time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_movements
“As for your next comment (7), did you just say that any government that allows homosexuality is tyrannical? I hope you don’t really believe that, but if you do, there’s a cat in Topeka, Kansas, who could use a guy like you. “
Your type hate the Declaration of Independence which states that it is the right and duty of a good government to ensure the natural God given rights of it people even from the people themselves. In other words if a government acts in a way to deprive or allow to deprived those rights then that government is tyrannical. You liberals are worse tyrants than King George ever was. If we had any sense there would be another war for liberty in the U.S. I am not proud of how complacent the people of the United States have come with tyranny.
I mean Americans allow people to be fired because they refuse to sell the Morning After Pill because their consious says it is evil then complain when someone tells them they shouldn’t do something self distructive like smoking.
That is sad!
Like I said, I am against abusive relationships of all kinds. Also, you can’t communicate with a dog about its desire or lack thereof to be married to a person. You just can’t.
I do appreciate that you want to let the people decide, but I’m still going to disagree with you. Some rights are non-negotiable. One of them is equal protection under the law.
Religions can define marriage however they’d like, but in a free society, if ninety percent of the population has the right to enjoy a legally recognized union with someone they love, the other ten percent is also entitled that right.
CR,
The APA contradicts itself because the say other sexual preferences like pedophilia are choices. When the finally act like they know what they are talking about then I will believe them. So far they do not impress me.
The AMA does not have the expertise to tell what is a choice and what is not a choice. The APA has more expertise though it is less stable.
Both the AMA and the APA would be better regarded if they stayed out of politics. They don’t and so are untrustworthy.
Studies have been done using identical twins and both twins were not always homosexual. Gay gene disproved. You may have a mixture of genes and environment factors which produces gays. Gays tend to have distant father figures and some other common environmental factors. My guess it that homosexuality like alcoholism is just another form of addiction. I believe alcoholics have trouble practicing abstinence also.
Linking discrimination to homosexuality is like linking discrimination to murder perhaps true but not necessary a bad thing. You need to prove that being discriminatory against homosexuals is malevolent.
Kerwin:
Pedophiles attack children. Murderers kill people.
Gay people have consensual relationships with other adults.
That you would equate these behaviors proves your malevolence. QED.
“QED” is an acronym for the Latin phrase “quod erat demonstrandum,” which, roughly translated, means “I win.”
Maven,
“Like I said, I am against abusive relationships of all kinds. Also, you can’t communicate with a dog about its desire or lack thereof to be married to a person. You just can’t.”
Homosexuality is an abusive relationship. That is why HIV/AIDS is so common. 50% of those with the disease are gay despite statistics that show they make up less than 5% of the population. They are also subject disportionately to other diseases. This also means more of your tax dollars are going to pay for the results their self destructive behavior.
“Religions can define marriage however they’d like, but in a free society, if ninety percent of the population has the right to enjoy a legally recognized union with someone they love, the other ten percent is also entitled that right. “
So marriage to an underage child is alright as long as he/she gives consent. Are you a member of NAMBLA or the ACLU? I realize I am misinterpreting your comment but I wanted to show you it is absurd. In a democracy/republic the majority rules or they are oppressed by the minority. That is why the United States is not a free society.
“Gay people have consensual relationships with other adults.”
Self destructive and other risky behavior is a crime against human rights. Consent has nothing to do with it. In this case homosexual behavior is a health risk to the general population. According to Roe v. Wade the government has the right to violate a person’s right to “privacy” in order to protect their personal health as well as the general welfare of the populace at large as in the case of mandatory vaccinations.
Beaming Visionary,
“Let’s assume you’re right, just to get all crazy ‘n’ stuff. Do you think people CHOOSE these external factors? Glad I decided to keep dad close when I was a month old!”
No I do not believe we significantly control out environmental factors when we are children. I do believe that we can overcome the negative influences of our environments and even our heritage. I, by the grace of God, have learned to control my temper to a large degree.
I know homosexuals who had children before and after they adopted the homosexual lifestyle. I know individuals who practice sexual abstinence. Both groups chose that action no matter what the environmental or hereditary involved were.
Kerwin:
Adult gay people should be allowed to form legally recognized unions with other adult gay people.
Underage children cannot give consent to marry, just as they cannot drive or vote or drink beer. We have age-of-consent laws because the brains of minors are not fully developed and we can thus not count on their word as true consent. So it is not okay for children to marry adults. It *is* okay for two adults to marry if they want to even if the difference between their ages is great (a 50-year-old and a 25-year-old have every right to get hitched even though a 40-year-old and a 15-year old do not).
Also, be advised that beginning a sentence “I know I’m misinterpreting your comment, but …” is an excellent way to get people to stop listening to you. It’s like saying, “Instead of responding to what you actually said, I’m going to respond to something I wish you had said.”
Maven,
Adult gay people should be allowed to form legally recognized unions with other adult gay people.
Why. You have failed to give a logical reason besides you feel that it is right. I showed when the act of homosexuality is a threat to the general welfare. You disregarded the general welfare which means you do not care about anything but your own opinions. Now show why homosexuality is not a risk to the welfare of human beings. Show me where HIV/Aids among those who practice homosexuality is decreasing. Show me you care about other human beings.